Terry Gilliam is a brilliant designer. In most cases, he's a miserable director. His films a stuffed with visual goodies, and quirky performances, but they are completely lacking in any emotion or humanity. His films rarely investigate anything meaningful, instead they chase down esoteric philosophical points or overly complex plot situations. Gilliam is capable of some very good moments, but his overall body of work is over-hyped by people who confuse interesting with meaningful.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus tells the tale of the titular Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) who runs a theater troupe that travels London. Parnassus has made a deal with the devil (portrayed by Tom Waits) and has a wager to snare or save five souls. The ante? Parnassus' daughter Valentina (Lily Cole).

Patrons are lured into a mirror onstage, behind which they enter into a supernatural world where their morality is tested and they find pleasure or damnation.

The goofy plot provides Gilliam with plenty of canvas on which to apply his visual flair. The plot unfortunately also gets easily convoluted. Gilliam makes the error of presenting the universe of Parnassus without explaining the details early on. Instead, Gilliam loads the first half of the film with fantastic, but obscure imagery and scenes without explaining what is going on in a logical fashion. The average audience member will most likely tune out of the film before the plot's hook is revealed. For those willing to hang on, the explanation seems more like a cobbled together excuse than a intentional narrative.

The film had a short cinematic shelf life. It would have been completely ignored, like many of Gilliam's other films, if it were not for Heath Ledger's untimely death.

Ledger was working on this film at the time of his drug-induced passing. To complete the film, Gilliam introduced a cheesy element where Ledger's character Tony transforms into different physical forms. This permitted Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell to step in and complete Ledger's scenes.

The inclusion of these other actors is conspicuous. These scenes are also, mostly, unnecessary. The added actors are put into scenes where they deal with surreal chase sequences and conflicts. They all give stunted performances Their disconnect with the material is clearly seen in their work.

Ultimately this is a disjointed and unemotional film. Gilliam may have the ability to create quirky and strange designs but he has always flounder giving them any humanity.




Related Reviews:
Heath Ledger movies
Casanova (2005)
The Dark Knight (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film School Rejects
The Writer's Corner





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Andrew Garfield, Christopher Plummer, Colin Farrell, Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Lily Cole, Peter Stormare, Terry Gilliam, Tom Waits

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Alice Braga, film, Forest Whitaker, Jude Law, Liev Schreiber, movie trailer

Like all Gilliam's films this is visually overwhelming.

Hopefully, unlike many of Gilliam's films, this will be watchable.





Screenwriters: Terry Gilliam (Brazil) and Charles McKeown (The Adventures of Baron Munchausen)
Director: Terry Gilliam (12 Monkeys)
Actors: Heath Ledger (The Patriot), Johnny Depp (The Libertine), Tom Waits (Domino), Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes), Andrew Garfield (Lions for Lambs), Colin Farrell (Phonebooth), Verne Troyer (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone), Christopher Plummer (Dracula 2000) and Peter Stormare (Fargo)

Labels: Christopher Plummer, Colin Farrell, film, Heath Ledger, Johnny Depp, Jude Law, movie trailer, Peter Stormare, Terry Gilliam, Tom Waits, Verne Troyer

Short Review: If you can stomach seeing Sherlock Holmes beating up a guy with nunchuck-looking things, hear his British accent fail him at the end of long sentences and seem more like Tony Stark than the classic character, you'll be just fine.


It takes about three seconds for the movie to reveal that this has as much to do with Sherlock Holmes as Austin Powers has to do with James Bond. The new and improved, space-age Sherlock (now with extra zing!) shares a name and some traits with his literary twin, but other than that, leave your knowledge of the old guy at home. He will only serve to get in the way of his newly minted cinematic doppelganger.

Taking the film for what it is, a plump, squishy, nonsense-laden hunk of crap from Hollywood, it is very effective. It offers attractive characters with bouncy dialog and some amusing moments of peril. The film entertains, which is better than I can say for most Hollywood deposits over the past twelve months.

Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is a British version of Tony Stark who is less sexed and has baggier facial expressions. Downey is fantastic at balancing himself on the edge of over-acting without ever crossing over. To me, this is his draw. He is charismatic and often overtakes the other actors around him. But he at least does us the favor of being worth watching while he distracts from everything else.

Downey is a solid actor and is finally delivering on the promise he showed way back when he made Chaplin. He spent a lot of years wandering the back alleys of Hollywood doing very stupid movies and simpleton roles (One Night Stand, Natural Born Killers, Two Girls and a Guy, Only You), but clean and sober, he has finally found his niche - regular stupid movies and relatively stupid roles. Yes, he's still slopping burgers at McDonalds, but the fact is that he is the best kid working the fry machine.

Opposite Downey is Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Other than offering to step in and dispatch of some toothless, dingy minions, we're not clear as to his purpose. He offers Holmes some banter and plays Felix to Holmes Oscar, but otherwise he follows the detective around like some intern assistant.

Law's performance does manage to keep up with Downey's work. The two mix well together and give the production a comfortable and friendly vibe. Law also looks the part of a Englishman. His presence, and steady accent, help to remind audiences this is supposed to be taking place in London, not Lot 13 in Burbank.

The film isn't without its downsides. The casting of Rachel McAdams is a notable fault. She has a pretty smile and near perfect skin. That wraps up the depth of her character Irene. McAdams wilts in comparison to both Downey and Law. She never finds her footing and fades into the background, even when she's the only one on screen. It is as if she was given her lines moments before stepping in front of the cameras, whereas Downey and Law had plenty of rehersal time with ample opportunity to explore their dialog, non-verbals and reactions. The two will have a scene with complex dialog, filled with lively exchange. Downey will then spend time with McAdams and their whole conversation could be reduced to grunts and eyebrow wiggling and little would be lost. In McAdams' defence, Irene is thinly written. Her dialog is far less dramatic and her motivations are clunky.

The other troubling part of the story is the mystery at the heart of the film is no mystery at all. Instead it is a plot that gets quickly unraveled on our behalf by Holmes. The audience has nothing to do with it. The fun of mysteries is for the viewer to attempt to uncover the truth before the hero. We are either outsmarted by the villain, or are as bright as the hero. Here, Holmes deciphers a complex plot and explains his logic in the final moments - a string of logic that would be impossible for any audience member to come to on their own. This drains what could have been, should have been, a great payoff for us. Then again, they had to concentrate on making sure Holmes as like all awesome and stuff.

I recommend the movie but I warn you it is a frosted, high-fructose, McMovie served in a dome-cup.




Related Reviews:
Robert Downey Jr. movies
Iron Man (2008)
Tropic Thunder (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Austin Chronicle
Eric D. Snyder

Labels: Eddie Marsan, film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie review, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

I haven't read all of Sherlock Holmes, but I fail to remember the one where he's fighting like a ninja and being handcuffed naked to a bed.

So, we're making Sherlock Holmes into Tony Stark with an accent?

Jude Law is Watson.

What part of this isn't freaking idiotic?




Screenwriters: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg (Jumper)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Rachel McAdams (Red Eye), Mark Strong (Body of Lies) and Jude Law (Sleuth)

Labels: film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie trailer, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

Science Fiction like it should be. Although flawed in its pacing, this movie overall delivers the goods. What is wonderful about this film is that its science fiction without having to pulls out aliens or laser guns or other silly distractions. This is a solid social commentary with an interesting look at genetic determinism and eugenics. A fresh and novel film made with oblivious care. This is a good pick for those times when you need a back up pick.


Related Reviews:
Science Fiction Movies
Metropolis (1927)
The Alien Franchise (1977-2004)
Sunshine (2008)



Other Critic's Reviews:
Daily Film Dose
Christian Spotlight on the Movies

Labels: Ethan Hawke, film, Gore Vidal, Jude Law, movie review, science fiction, Uma Thurman

The adaptation, written by Harold Pinter is as dry as old toast covered in sand and served on a plank of dried balsa wood. Shaffer's play pits two characters, the young, handsome Milo and the aged, wealthy and intelligent Andrew. Milo has run off with Andrew's wife and as come to Andrew's mansion to ask the old man to give the woman a divorce. Andrew has a devious plot for the young actor however and a well conceived plot unwinds. Pinter's takes Shaffer's piece and makes it into an antiseptic bore. By the time the piece picks up some steam, Pinter has asked the audience to sit through an insufferable amount of needless prattling. The characters exhibit no actual human qualities beyond the capacity to speak words and inflect their voices. Michael Caine and Jude Law both seem awkward in their lines and developing their roles. Caine in particular seems off. This is surprising since he can pretty much show up on a set and carry the show. In this instance however, he is clearly not comfortable. He should be quite at home in this film though since this isn't the first time he's been around this material.

Back in 1972, Shaffer himself wrote a cleaner and bouncier version that starred Lawrence Oliver and Caine. Caine of course, played the younger role his first time out. The previous version seems like a piece of brilliant cinematic art in comparison to this needless update. The original, directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (The Barefoot Contessa, Cleopatra) revels in the play of characters. Branagh's version comes across like someone reading the script to you for ninety minutes.

If you have a need to see this film do yourself a huge favor and head down to your local video store, dig around in the dusty portion of the drama section and rent the original. It will cost a great deal less and entertain a great deal more.


* - to be fair, all conceptual art is crappy.


Related Reviews:
Michael Caine movies
The Eagle Has Landed (1972)
The Weather Man (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
A Nutshell Review

Labels: film, Jude Law, Kenneth Branagh, Michael Caine, movie review